Contents lists available at
Journal homepage: http://twasp.info/journal/home
Research
Assessment of The Ecological Health Status of River Berga Using Benthic
Macroinvertebrates as Bioindicators, Ethiopia
Lammessa Berisa*1
, Aschalew Lakew2, Alemayehu Negassa
3
1Aquatic Animals Biodiversity case Team, Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute, P.O. Box 30726
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 2Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), National Fishery and Aquatic Life
Research Centre, P.O. Box 64, Sebeta, Ethiopia 3Departments of Biology, Ambo University, Ethiopia
*Corresponding Author :
Lammessa Berisa
Email: [email protected]
Published online : 1 June, 2019
Abstract: Riverine ecosystem is one of the most productive ecosystems in the world that
supports a large proportion of the earth’s biodiversity.Numerous plants and animals survive
and grow in water and thus, it serves as home of aquatic organisms.However, anthropogenic
activities in theriver system and its catchment have adverse effect on the existence of aquatic
biota and hamper the provision of good quality water.This study was conducted to assess
theecological health status of River Berga using benthic macroinvertebrates as
bioindicators. The study was carried out at three sampling sites (Cecafe, Melka fiche and
Kimoye) in December 2016, February and April 2017.Sampling sites were selected based on
land use pattern, habitat types, substrate structure and other human
activities.Macroinvertebrates were collected using a standard hand netwith frame width of
25*25 cm and the collected macroinvertebrates were identified to family level. A total of
7295 benthic macroinvertebrates comprising 38 families, 10 orders and 3 phyla were
recorded. Among benthic macroinvertebrates, Ephemeroptera (53%), Trichoptera (36.23%)
and Diptera (4.67%) were the dominant taxa groups. Diversity index such as Shannon-
Weiner diversity and biotic scores like ETHbios showed increasing degradation along the
river channel mainly from non-point sources of pollution and physical disturbances. The
presence of few pollution-sensitive taxa such as(Leptophlebiidae and Philopotamidae), and
some moderately-sensitive taxa like (Psephenidae) at site one, implies the upper section was
not as polluted as the downstream sections. Comparisons of sites with selected benthic
invertebrate indices reflect increasing level of ecological degradation of the river that
requires management actions.Comprehensive and long term study may be required
tounderstandfactors impacting the river.
Keywords: metrics, macroinvertebrates,biodiversity, stressors, river
Introduction
Rivers provide suitable habitats for diverse species of macroinvertebrates.Numerous plants and
animals, ranging from microscopic algae to large plants, from protozoan to mammals, survive
and grow in water and thus, it serves as home of aquatic organisms (Gopal and Chauhan, 2001).
Benthic macroinvertebrates refer to the organisms that inhabit the bottom substrates (sediments,
debris, logs, macrophytes, filamentous algae etc.) of aquatic habitats, for at least part of their life
cycleand which are usually retained by nets with rush size of about 0.6mm (Macan, 1959). The
density of aquatic benthic macroinvertebrate families and communities is controlled by a variety
of environmental factors such as habitat characteristics (Peeters and Gardeniers, 1998), sediment
grain size (Tolkamp, 1980), and by biological factors, including competition and predation
(Bhatet al., 2011). Stream flow, nature of substratum and organic pollution generally regulates
the species composition and dominance of different taxa in various stretches of rivers (Bhatet al.,
2011). Further, anthropogenic activities, such as agriculture, recreation, silviculture, land
clearing, urban development, organic and metal contamination affect the composition
anddistribution of freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates (Wahizatulet al., 2011). Thus,the
macroinvertebrate fauna could be affected by each one of those stresses, and the fauna at any
given site may be the result of more than one category of stress (Wright, 1997).
Benthic macroinvertebrates have been favoredto explain the function and biodiversity of
ecosystem in running water, since they serve in detritus processing, animal-microbial interaction
and energy transfer to the consumers at higher trophic levels (Wallace and Webster, 1996). They
are generally abundant and can be found year round so are easily sampled. Since many aquatic
species have a life span in water of approximately a year, they provide an indication of water
quality conditions over that period.A number of studies have been carried out in Ethiopia relating
to biomonitoring of rivers and streams so far (Baye Sitotaw, 2006; Birenesh Abay, 2007;
Aschalew Lakew, 2015a; Alemayehu Negassa, 2016). Besides, Seyoum Leta et al. (2003)
characterized the wastewater and downstream pollution profiles of Mojo River in Ethiopian Rift
valley.However,since not much information is available on the biomonitoring of River Berga the
present study attempts to assess the ecological health of River Berga using benthic
macroinvertebrates as bioindicators.
Materials and Methods
Description of the Study area
The study area is situated in the Ethiopian central high land lying between latitude 9o1'40"N–
9o1'30"N and longitude 38
o21'0"E–38
o21'15"E (Fig.1). It focuses on the river Berga, major
tributary of river Awash in the upper section.River Berga is perennial river which originates
from the central highland of Ethiopia around Addea berga weroda and flows southwards to join
Upper Awash. It is about 60 km from the capital Addis-Ababa on the way to Ambo town and 80
km on the way to Mugger. River Berga catchment is about 303 km2 (Hussen Endre, 2006).
Dobbi, Addama, Fachi and Kerbo are among the most tributariesand the river provides several
services, on which the people depend for domestic and irrigation along its gradient from the head
water to the junction with river Awash.Furthermore, people use the river water for drinking and
washing their clothes in the upper section and intensively used for livestock watering.
Fig.1. Map of the study area showing the sampling sites.
Three important sites were selected based on land use pattern, vegetation cover, habitat types,
substrate structure and other human activities, such as washing clothes, grazing animals,
watering and agricultural activities. Thus, the selected sites were following the rapid bio
assessment protocol criteria (Barbour et al., 1999). Site one (S1) is located at the river reach
called Cecafe. The selection of the site was based on observation of minimally impacted physical
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
habitat, low human population pressure; no known discharge and good vegetation cover. The
substrates were dominated by megalithal, macrolithal, mesolithal, microlithal, sand and a muddy
mixed with decaying leaf litter in pool area. The banks were moderately covered with herbs,
shrubs and trees on both sides. Site two (S2) is located in Cirri, particular name called Melka
Fiche 300 meters in length downstream of site one.The substrate of the river was dominated by
megalithal, macrolithal, mesolithal, microlithal and muddy. Bank of the river scattered steep with
herbs, shrubs and trees on the left side and eroded on the right side. At this site, agricultural
activities and bathing were common practices. Site three (S3) is located in near Kimoye village,
above the main bridge on Addis Ababa to Ambo town high way at the distance of 400 meters
downstream from the site two. The banks of the river were eroded. Anthropogenic activities such
as grazing, washing clothes, cattle watering and bathing are common practices. The structural
habitat of the river is dominated by microlithal, mesolithal, macrolithal and megalithal at riffle;
sand and mud are the dominant habitats in pools.
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected using standard hand net with frame width of 25*25
cm and mesh size 500μm. A method suitable to sample variety of habitat types, multi-habitat
sampling (MHS) scheme, was implemented (Moog, 2005) and a total of 20 sampling units per
sampling stations were taken. These sampling units were proportionally situated in all
microhabitats with at least 5% coverage at each station. A sampling unit is a sample performed
by positioning the net downstream and disturbing the substrate in a quadratic area that equals the
frame area of the net. Sampling start at the downstream end of the reach and proceeded upstream
against the current within the stretch sampling size of 40 meters. Megalithal stones were sampled
by brushing the surface approximately equal to size of the sampling net. Macrolithal stones were
picked by hand and their surfaces were brushed to dislodge clingers and sessile organisms.
During sampling, the net was rinsed by running clean stream water to avoid clogging which
could interfere with obtaining an appropriate sample. The macroinvertebrates samples collected
were transferred into a container and washed with sufficient amount of water added and the
supernatant was poured onto a sieve (500μm) to retain the macroinvertebrates while removing
the mud. Samples per sampling units were then combined and preserved in 4% formaldehyde for
further analysis.
In laboratory, a complete samples were passed through a set of sieves (2000, 1000, 500 and 250
mm mesh size) in order to remove formalin, and separate size classes of macroinvertebrate
groups under tap water in laboratory (Aschalew Lakew, 2014). The process of sieving is very
delicate and care was taken to avoid any damage to the fragile organisms and to secure all
animals present in the samples collected. The sorting was made effective by adding a small
amount of retained materials from the sieves and moderate volume of water into container to
improve visibility. During the process, the organisms recovered from the sample were placed
into the Petri dishes according to their taxonomic categories. Accordingly, large benthic
organisms easily visible were picked out first using forceps, whereas smaller ones picked out
starting from one side (left–right or vice versa) of the container continuously until the organisms
completed in the pan. In this way, macroinvertebrates trapped in the coarse fraction of the sieve
were sorted completely in the laboratory using naked eyes, while organisms trapped in the
smaller fraction of the sieve were sorted with the help of hand lens and light microscope. When
the sorting of a sample was completed, the family names and associated counts were recorded on
a data sheet. The identification have been done up to family level based on the available
literatures (Merritt and Cummins, 1996; Gerber and Gabrial, 2002 and Wolfram et al., 2006). All
the identified organisms were placed (by each taxonomic category) into small alcohol filled vials
and internally labeled. Finally, the identified organisms were immediately preserved with 70%
alcohol for further taxonomic analysis.
Results and Discussion
Macroinvertebrate composition and distribution
Present investigations on benthic macroinvertebrate fauna of river Berga revealed the presence of
three major Phyla i.e. Annelida, Arthropoda and Mollusca (Alamet al., 2008), as confirmed by
this study. In total, 38 benthic macroinvertebrate families (taxa) comprising 7295 individuals
were identified, of which 2 families belonged to Annelida, 33 families to Arthropoda and 3
families to Mollusca in 10 orders (Table 1). Arthropoda belonging to 33 families made up
99.42% of total abundance and non-insect belonging to 5 families constituted the remaining 0.58.
Table 1. Distribution and relative abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates families collected
from the different sampling sites of river Berga.
pg. 9
Order Family/taxa Mean ofindividuals/m2
S1 S2 S3
Coleoptera (Beetles) Dytiscidae 5 4 15
Elmidae 27 43 41
Gyrinidae 1 1 0
Psephenidae 6 0 0
Diptera (True flies) Chironomidae 27 57 78
Muscidae 3 6 10
Simuliidae 12 29 94
Tabanidae 2 10 6
Tipulidae 2 3 2
Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)
Baetidae 996 879 765
Caenidae 181 184 96
Heptageniidae 208 239 186
Leptophlebiidae 13 4 2
Prosopistomatidae 1 0 0
Tricorythidae 46 41 50
Hemiptera (True bugs) Corixidae 20 37 7
Gerridae 1 0 0
Naucoridae 7 5 0
Notonectidae 1 1 4
Pleidae 43 39 14
Veliidae 2 0 0
Odonata (Dragonflies and
Damselflies)
Aeshnidae 6 8 3
Chlorolestidae 1 0 0
Coenagrionidae 3 7 4
Gomphidae 3 12 3
Lestidae 1 1 0
Libellulidae 1 2 0
Trichoptera (caddisflies) Helicopsychidae 1 7 0
Hydropsychidae 1188 720 688
Philopotamidae 2 0 0
Pisulidae 1 0 0
Polycentropodidae 1 0 0
Psychomyiidae 16 3 15
Basommatophora Physidae 0 1 4
Planorbidae 0 18 16
Veneroidea Corbiculidae 0 1 0
Arhynchobdellida Hirudinae 0 1 0
Tubificida Tubificidae 0 0 1
Total no. of taxa (families) 38
Total no. of individuals 7295
33
2828
30
2363
23
2104
While registering the macroinvertebrates, some fluctuations were observed in the abundance
of taxa among the sites. S1 had the highest number of individuals followed by S2 while S3
has the lowest individual abundance (Table 1). Of 10 identified orders; Ephemeroptera and
Trichoptera were decreased in abundance and Coleoptera, Diptera and Basommatophora
increased in abundance from S1 to S3 during the study period. The general decrease in the
number of taxa and the absence of sensitive taxa; Plecoptera and less numbers of
pg. 10
Ephemeroptera and Trichoptera at S2 and S3 can be associated to stressors; increase in
washing cloth, bathing, agricultural activities, cattle grazing in the shore and watering points.
The present observation corroborates with the findings of Aschalew Lakew (2015) who
reported human activities, such as cattle watering, domestic waste disposal and agricultural
activities reduced taxa composition compared with least impacted sites in upper Awash
River.
Tabatabaie and Amiri (2010) also recorded lower diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates at
polluted sites of the water bodies they studied, which supports the present result as benthic
macroinvertebrates diversity and abundance drastically decreased at impaired S2 and S3 as
compared with least impaired S1. Ephemeroptera was represented by six families of
Prosopistomatidae, Leptophlebiidae,Caenidae, Tricorythidae, Heptageniidae and Baetidae,
the latter of which was the most preponderant and most abundant in the group (36.2% of total
abundance). It was the most abundant at S1 (1445ind/m2) followed by S2 (1347 ind/m
2) and
least at S3 (1099 ind/m2). Pollution can cause a decline in Ephemeropteran population
(Padmanabha and Belagali, 2007). According to Biasi et al. (2008), one of the factors that
affect the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera richness in streams is the availability of
habitats. However, moderate pollution sensitive Ephemeropteran and Trichoptera family,
Baetidae and Hydropsychidae had their highest abundance (879ind/m2 and 1188ind/m
2) at S2
and S1, respectively. Thus, the present observation corroborates with the findings of Buss et
al. (2002), Buss and Salles, (2007), Biasi et al. (2008) and Aschalew Lakew and Moog
(2015) who reported Baetidae and Hydropsychidae tolerant to the adverse conditions that
cause an increment in its population in relation to other taxa.
The presence of Coleopteran together with other somewhat tolerant families such as
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera in the aquatic system reflects good water
conditions (Emere and Nasiru, 2009). In the study area except Plecoptera, all of these
families were recorded in all sites, but relatively highest in S1 (37%) followed by S2 (29%)
and the least abundant in S3 (25%). The abundance of Coleopterans revealed that it was
higher (48 ind/m2) at S2 as compared to (30ind/m
2) at S1. Spanhoff et al. (2007) recorded
Coleopterans at least polluted sites and Camargo (1992) recorded them absent at discharge
point. Lenat (1984) reported that Coleoptera replaced sensitive EPT taxa in the streams
receiving agricultural runoff; they were ranked relatively more tolerant to agricultural inputs
(Lenat, 1993). The present result, Coleoptera (particularly Elmidae larvae) was the most
abundant (43ind/m2) macroinvertebrate groups at S2 that lined with the finding ofLenat
(1993). Besides, other Coleoptera member includes Psephenidae, identified only at S1
pg. 11
conformed to finding of (Junqueira and Campos (1998) who reported Psephenidae extremely
sensitive to pollution and recorded at least polluted sites.
The presence of Dipterans at the polluted sites was mainly contributed by Chironomidae
family with the abundance of 57ind/m2 and 78 ind/m
2 at S2 and S3, respectively. Dipterans
are tolerant organisms (Lenat, 1993), and their abundance may indicate degraded conditions
(Buckup et al., 2007). Sharma et al. (2013) identified Order Diptera constituting largest
density owing to the most abundant group Chironomidae which justifies its highest density at
S3 in our study area due to some stressors; bathing, domestic waste and soil bank eroded side
by side. A very meager density of Odonata was observed at all sites with 10, 30 and 10ind.m2
at S1, S2 and S3, respectively. Verma and Saksena (2010) reported Odonata nymphs as
inhabitants of freshwaters with rich oxygen and least/no pollution. Emere and Nasiru (2009)
also associated Odonata with clean water. However, this is not supported with the present
result the greatest abundance was recorded in impaired S2.This might be attributed to its
direct relationship with availability of sufficient food production due to nutrient supply from
agricultural farm lands compared to other sites.
The densities of non-insect taxa were relatively low, of the 38 taxa only Physidae,
Planorbidae, Corbiculidae, Hirudinae and Tubificidae presence were limited to S2 and S3
(Table 1). The presence of Hirudinae indicates water of poor quality. It is known that leeches
are very tolerant to impacted and eutrophic environments (Pérez, 1988).Molluscs
(Gastropoda and Bivalvia) were available in S2 and S3 during the study period, which
indicate the environment of the river Berga was polluted with organic and inorganic
pollutants from point and non-point sources. This may happened due to various stressors such
as unsuitable agricultural practices, cattle grazing in the river shore and physical disturbance
in watering points.These activities could affect the occurrence of macroinvertebrates and the
abundance specifically sensitive taxa groups (Aschalew Lakew and Moog, 2015).
Table 2. The average value of core macroinvertebrate metrics among sites of river Berga.
Metrics
Sites
S1 S2 S3
Taxa richness 38 30 23
Shannon Diversity Index 5.25 4.93 4.8
Hilsenhoff family-level biotic index 4.2 4.37 5.3
Percentage of Chironomidae 0.95 2.45 3.7
ETHbios index score 170 145 119
ETHbios- Average Score Per Taxa 5.86 5.18 5.17
pg. 12
Taxa richness is the simplest diversity measures used for evaluating different stressors (Royer
et al., 2001; Ofenboeck et al., 2004). A decrease of taxa richness in response to disturbance is
reported by many authors (Barbour et al., 1996; Karr and Chu, 1999) but others like Metcalfe
(1989) indicated increase of taxa richness with intermediate disturbance. In this study
significant number of taxa reduction was observed in S3 which could be explained by high
in-stream activities, poor agricultural practices and physical disturbance by livestock.
ETHbios was developed to provide a simple biomonitoring tool for assessing ecological
status of Ethiopian highland streams,specifically for woodland and grassland ecoregions
located above1800 m a.s.l (Aschalew Lakew and Moog, 2015). This score metrics showed
significant difference among sites showed increasing disturbance level along the river
channel.
Percentage of Chironomidae was the highest at site three (3.7%) followed by site two
(2.45%) and the least percentage of Chironomidae was recorded at site one (0.95%) (Table
2).This revealed that, Site three is more polluted than other sites. The result is confirmed with
the foundation of Marques et al. (1999) which explained that the dominance of Chironomidae
showed decline in ecosystem health.A Shannon diversity index was the highestdiversity
index at site one (H’=5.25) followed by site two (H’ = 4.93) and least at site three (H’= 4.8).
The H-FBI value of site one had lowest H-FBI index (4.2) followed by site two (4.37) and
site three had the highest (5.3). There by indicating that site three and two are slightly poorer
in benthic macroinvertebrate diversity than that of the site one. As the whole the H-FBI
values for the entire sample sites scored 4.6 which indicate some organic pollution likely
affect the water river and leading to reduce biodiversity which confirmed with foundation of
Dallas, 2007.
Conclusion and recommendation
A trend in the benthic community was observed to predict alterations caused by different
stressors observed in the study sites mainly, in-stream activities, agricultural practices and
animal watering pointswere the major factors in determining the abundance, composition and
distribution of benthic macroinvertebrates. The present study concluded that the presence of
some pollution indicator families, such as Tubificidae, Hirudinae, Chironomidae, Tabanidae,
Caenidae, Physidae and the total absence of the Plecoptera family at S1 directly points to the
shifting status of the river from non-polluted to pollute. Thus, the stressors caused alarming
shift or total elimination of sensitive biotic community from the habitat.Furthermore, there
were few pollution-sensitive (i.e., Leptophlebiidae and Philopotamidae), and some
moderately-sensitive (i.e., Psephenidae) families, which implies that theS1 was not as
pg. 13
polluted as the downstream sites. This observation was confirmed by ETHbios threshold
values where the upper site fell in high water quality, and the downstream sites are moderate
water quality status.Therefore, the mitigate measures should be taken to prevent the further
deterioration of river Berga.
Acknowledgment
First and for most, I would like to thank God for his elegance and immeasurable love, giving
me strength and patience to bring out this humble piece of work in to light. I am greatly
indebted to Professor P. Natarajan for his encouragement during field work and Mr. Berhan
Asmamaw for editorial comments. My deepest heartfelt thanks also extended to my wife
Fantu Wego for her support all my achievements by taking the entire load of my shoulder.
Last, but not least, I have special thanks to all my families, my mother Nigise Weyuma, my
brothers Guta, Banti, Milkesa and my sisters Chuchu and Likitu for all their assistance and
taking responsibility of the family.
References
Alam M.S., Hoque M.M., Bari M.F., Badruzzaman A.B.M., Tuber H. and Fliedl B.(2008).
Aquatic macroinvertebrates as bio-indicators: a new approach for river water quality
assessment in Bangladesh. ASSESS-HKH Proceedings of the Scientific Conference
on the Ecology and Environmental Assessment of Rivers in the Hindu Kush-
Himalaya.
Alemayehu Negassa (2016). Spatial and Temporal trends in the water quality of Huluka
River, Ethiopia: an assessment using selected physicochemical and biological
methods Thesis for (PhD), Addis Ababa University. Available on line
at:etd.aau.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/13730/1/Alemayehu%20Negassa%20Emana
Aschalew Lakew and Moog O. (2015). Benthic macro invertebrates based new biotic score
“ETHbios” for assessing ecological conditions of highland streams and rivers in
Ethiopia”. Limnological 52 (2015): 11-19.
Aschalew Lakew (2015). Assessing Anthropogenic impacts using benthic macro
invertebrates as bio-indicator in central highland streams of Ethiopia. Ethiopian
Journal ofEnvironmental Studies and Management, 8(1):45-26.
Aschalew Lakew (2014). Development of biological monitoring systems using benthic
invertebrates to assess the ecological status of central and southeast highland rivers of
Ethiopia.Ph.D Thesis, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences at Vienna,
Austria, 163 p.
pg. 14
Barbour M.T., Gerristen J., Snyder B.D. and Stripling J.B. (1999). Rapid bio assessment
protocols for use in streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, benthic
macroinvertebrates and fish, second edition. EPA841-B-99-002.U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Baye Sitotaw (2006). Assessment of Benthic macro-invertebrate structures in relation to
Environmental Degradation in some Ethiopia rivers.M.Sc. Thesis, Addis Ababa
University, Addis Ababa.
Bhat S.U., Sofi A.H., Yaseen T., Pandit A.K. and YousufA.R. (2011). Macro Invertebrate
Community from Sonamarg Streams of Kashmir Himalaya. Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 14:
182-194.
Biasi C., Milesi S.V., Restello R.M. and Hepp L.U. (2008). Occurrence distribution insect’s
aquatic organisms (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera) Perspectiva,
32:171‑180.
Birnesh, Abay (2007). Assessment of benthic macroinvertebrate structures in relation to
environmental degradation in some Ethiopian rivers M.Sc. Thesis, School of Graduate
Studies, Addis Ababa University.
Buckup L., Alessandra A.P.B., Bond-Buckup G., Casagrande M. and Majolo F. (2007). The
benthic macroinvertebrate fauna of highland strauna of highland streams in
southereams in southern Brazil: composition, diversity and structure.
RevistaBrasileira de Zoologia, 24 (2): 294–301.
Buss D.F. and Salles F.F. (2007).Using Baetidae species as biological indicators of
environmental degradation in a Brazil River basin.Environ. Monit.Assess,130: 365-
372.
Buss D.F., Baptista D.F., Silveira M.P., Nessimian J.L. and Dorvillé L.F.M. (2002). Influence
of water chemistry and environmental degradation on macroinvertebrates assemblages
in a river basin in south-east Brazil. Hydrobiology, 481(1-3):125-136.
CarmagoJ.A. (1992). Macroinvertebrate responses along the recovery gradient of a regulated
river (Spain) receiving an industrial effluent. Arch. Envir. Contam.Toxicol.23: 324–
332.
Dallas H.F.(2007). The influence of biotope availability on macroinvertebrate assemblages in
South African rivers: implications for aquatic bioassessment. Freshwater.Biol. 52,
370–380.
pg. 15
Dobson M., Mathooko J.M., Magana A. and Ndegwa F.K. (2002). Macroinvertebrate
assemblages and detritus processing in Kenyan highland streams: more evidence for
the paucity of shredders in the tropics. Freshwater biology,47(5):909-919
Dudgeon D. (1999). Tropical Asian Streams: Zoobenthos, ecology and conservation. Hong
Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Emere M.C. and Nasiru C.E. (2009).Macroinvertebrates as indicators of the water quality of
an urbanized stream, Kaduna, Nigeria.Nature and Science,7(1): 1-7.
Flore J. and Zafaralla M. (2012). Macroinvertebrate composition, diversity and richness in
relation to the water quality status of Mananga River, Cebu,Guest Editor: Benjamin
M. Vallejo, 5(2):103-113.
Gerber A.M. and Gabriel J.M. (2002). Aquatic Invertebrates of South African Rivers, Field
Guide, Institute for Water Quality studies, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry,
24-145p.
Gopal B. and Chauhan M. (2001). Ecohydrology: Rediscovering freshwater ecology. In:
Subramanian, V. and Ramanathan, A.L. (eds.), Ecohydrology. UNESCO- IHP Series,
New Delhi, Capital Publishing: 339- 354p.
Groombridge, B. and Jenkins, M. (1998). Freshwater Biodiversity: A preliminary global
assessment. Cambridge, United Nations Environment Programme-World
Conservation Monitoring Centre, World Conservation Press.
Hussen Endre (2006). Water resource potential evaluation of berga river
catchment.M.Sc.Thesis Addis Ababa University.
Junqueira V.M. and Campos S.C.M. (1998).Adaptation of the “BMWP” method for water
quality evaluation to Rio das Velhas watershed (Minas Gerais,
Brazil).ActaLimnologicaBrasiliensia, 10(2):125-135.
Lenat D.R. (1984). Benthic macroinvertebrates of Cane Creek, North Carolina, and
comparisons with other southeastern streams.Brimleyana, 9: 53-68.
Lenat D.R. (1993). Using mentum deformities of Chironomus larvae to evaluate the effects of
toxicity and organic loading in streams. J.N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 21: 265-269.
Macan T.T (1959). A guide on freshwater vertebrates, Longman publishers London. 118pp
Marques M.M.G.S.M., Barbosa F.A.R., Callisto M., 1999.Distribution and abundance of
Chironomidae (Diptera, Insecta) in an impacted watershed in southeast Brazil. Rev.
Brasil. Biol. 54(4), 1-9.
Merritt R.W. and Cummins K.W. (1996).An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North
America.3rd edn. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. 862p.
pg. 16
Moog O. (2005). Guidance for pre-classifying the ecological status of HKH Rivers.
Deliverable 7b for ASSESS-HKH, European Commission, 27 pp. Available from:
http://www. Assess-hkh.
Padmanabha B. and Belagali S. L. (2007).Macro benthos as pollution indicators in freshwater
lakes of Mysore.Pollute. Res., 26(2): 245–248.
Peeters E.T.H.M. and Gardeniers, J.J.P. (1998).Logistic regression as a tool for defining
habitat requirements of two common gammarids.Freshwater Biology, 39: 605-615.
Pérez, G.R. (1988). Guíapara el estudio de los macroinvertebradosAquáticos del department
Antioquia. Bogotá: Editorial Presença. 217p.
Seyoum Leta, Fassil A. and Gunnel (2003). Characterization of Tannery wastewater and
assessment of downstream pollution profiles along Modjo River in Ethiopia. Ethiopia.
Journal Biology Science,2(2):157-168.
Sharma S., Dubey S., Chaurasia R. and Dave V. (2013). Macro-invertebrates community
diversity in relation to water quality status of Kunda River (M.P.) India; Discovery,
3(9): 40-46.
Spanhoff B., Bischof R., Bohme A., Lorenz S., Neumeister K., Nothlich A. and Kusel K.
(2007).Assessing the impact of effluents from a modern wastewater treatment plant
on breakdown of coarse particulate organic matter and benthic macroinvertebrates in
a lowland river.Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 180(1): 119–129.
Tabatabaie T. and Amiri F. (2010).The impact of industrial pollution on benthic macro fauna
communities.African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 4(9): 547-
557.
Verma A.K. and Saksena D.N. (2010). Assessment of water quality and pollution status of
Kalpi (Morar) river, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh: with special reference to conservation
and management plan. Asian J. Exp. Biol. Sci., 1(2): 419-429.
Wahizatul A.A., Long S.H. and Ahmad A. (2011).Composition and distribution of aquatic
insect communities in relation to water quality in two freshwater streams of Hulu
Terengganu, Terengganu.Journal of Hazardous Materials,6(1): 148-155.
Wallace J.B., Webster J.R. and Lowe R.L. (1996).High-gradient streams of the Appalachians.
In: Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States Aquatic Communities. (Hackney,
C.T., Adams, S.M. and Martin.W.A. eds). John Willy and Sons, New York. 133-
191p.
pg. 17
Wolfram, G., Hans, M. and Astrid Schmidt, K. (2006). Development of an assessment system
to evaluate the ecological status of Rivers in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan Region,
Kathmandu University Dhulikhel, Nepal,18p.
Wright J.F.(1997). An introduction to RIVPACS.In assessing the biological quality of
freshwaters; RIVPACS and other techniques.(J.F.Wright, D.W. Sutcliffe and M.T.
Furse, eds), Freshwater Biological Association, UK. 1–24p
© 2019 by the authors. TWASP, NY, USA . Author/authors are
fully responsible for the text, figure, data in above pages. This
article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)